Malloy campaign really thinks new gun laws reduced crime?
Total hogwash. I was just reading about Joe Visconti (I) dropping out of the Connecticut governor’s race. He’s asking supporters to vote for Tom Foley (R) to avoid another four years of Gov. D.P. Malloy’s (D) running the state. At the end of the article, the Malloy campaign actually brought guns up.
So here we go…
Malloy campaign spokesman Mark Bergman released a statement Sunday saying: “Tom Foley just doubled down on his plans to repeal Connecticut’s strict smart gun law that has made our neighborhoods, our schools and our streets safer. Make no mistake, Tom Foley is in the pocket of the right wing extreme gun lobby and today’s announcement is further proof.”
Bull shit. The “smart” gun laws did nothing – and I mean NOTHING – to make our neighborhoods, schools or streets “safer.” I’d like to see any proof* at all from Bergman or the Malloy administration detailing how the new Connecticut gun laws reduced crime at all in the state? Let’s take a look at the new requirements and regulations.
First, we have to register magazines that have a capacity of more than 10 rounds. So by registering magazines, how did that reduce crime one bit? Second, we had to register semi-auto rifles that fall into their so-called “assault weapon” category. How did that reduce crime one bit?
The registration scheme is simply designed to stigmatize gun owners in an attempt to tell everyone the government has the power. The anti-gun crowd thinks owners need to be monitored. Of course, the one and only reason for registration is future confiscation. The government now has a list, and if you didn’t register, they have the ability to make you a felon in the future if they choose to. The bastards just want to hold this axe over your head, it’s as simple as that. Of course, registration of magazines and rifles did not stop one – NOT ONE – crime in Connecticut.
Also, you can no longer buy magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and you can’t buy some of the “evil black rifles.” Again, prove to me these new laws stopped even one crime in Connecticut. How does limiting people to 10 rounds lower the crime rate?
Don’t give me that “you only need 10-rounds” crap. I’ve proven 10 rounds may not be enough. Norwich police had less than a 15 percent hit rate when they shot and killed Michael Dugas in February, 2013. Seriously, they were only able to hit the suspect six times out of 41 shots fired. That shooting was justified. Seven officers were on the scene for many minutes negotiating with Dugas before they shot him in self-defense.
They also expanded the evil black rifle ban. Semi-auto rifles are rarely used during a crime, and Connecticut is no exception. Of course, there are still hundreds-of-thousands of these rifles that are still in Connecticut. Many registered, some not. If a criminal wants to get ahold of one, it’s easy to do. If a non-criminal non-resident wants to buy one out-of-state – and buy a bunch of 30 round magazines at the same time – and become a criminal in Connecticut, it’s super easy to do. Of course if the person was a criminal in the first place, it would be pretty easy too.
If you happen to own a Winchester Model 70 rifle you want to sell the gun to a hunting buddy you’ve known for 40 years, you can’t do that without going to the state for approval. You’ll have to pay a fee for that too. That’s the result of the Connecticut universal background check requirement. Of course, criminals don’t bother with background checks.
There is no way they can prove Connecticut is safer with these laws in place.
As a matter of fact, we already know that violent crime during the last two decades is down. Why anti-gun politicians don’t take credit for the huge reduction in overall violent crime is simple. They want even more control. Don’t like speaking in terms of decades? OK, let’s look specifically at violent crime per 100k, gun murders, robbery involving guns and aggravated assaults with a gun in Connecticut. All of this is from the FBI crime statistics, and I’m using the years 2006 through 2012 since we don’t have the completed 2013 report yet.
I’ve quoted FBI statistics before, and I’ve specifically discussed the hundreds of variables that can change crime statistics over time. It’s the reason I don’t site crime statistics in Chicago and point out the hypocrisy of their stupid guns laws that don’t work. The law is just one variable, and criminals don’t give a crap about the law.
Now let’s look at the number of background checks that were run in Connecticut during the same time period. Keep in mind, each background check may represent a new or used gun purchased at a dealer, or a private sale of a handgun prior to the new gun laws going into place. Also, you can buy multiple guns on one background check in Connecticut. Therefore, this data is valuable as a trend line, but it does not represent the number of guns sold.
And overlaid on top of the previous chart. (I removed the 2013 background check numbers since we don’t have completed crime data for 2013.)
The number of background checks between 2006 and 2013 (seven total years of data) tripled – I say again TRIPLED – in the state of Connecticut. Violent crime remained flat. Firearm murders fluctuate and do not show a specific trend although they did jump in 2013 unfortunately due to the tragedy in Newtown. Yes. you can see a trending up line in other violent crime involving firearms in Connecticut, but it does not tell the complete story because of all of the variables.
Malloy is pandering to the low-information, ill-informed voting crowd in Connecticut when he claims the law is “obviously working.” One year does not make an obvious trend. He’s insulting our intelligence. Here are just a few of the other things that may have reduced the murder rate in Connecticut’s big cities in 2013.
- Population density and degree of urbanization.
- Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
- Stability of the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
- Modes of transportation and highway system.
- Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
- Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
- Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
- Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
- Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
- Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
- Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
- Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.
None of that could be contributing or major factors as far as Malloy is concerned. It was all the new gun laws. Never mind good police work. Never mind the good work of community leaders. Never mind any of it…
* Yup, I understand I’m asking Malloy and the anti-gun crowd to “prove a negative” but I don’t care. They ask us to do this all the time.
What would you expect? Malloy thinks he is doing a great job too, and Bubba Clinton, and both of the ?bamas had to come here to “prove” it. You would think that it would be self apparent if true, but if you have to bring in the politically radioactive ?bamas to convince people, you have a problem.
Liberals like Malloy come from the “good intentions count even if there are zero results” category of politicians. That, and repeat a lie often enough, there are certainly enough low information voters (Democrats) that will swallow it whole. The fact that he is in a neck and neck race with Foley proves that.
No gun law will work when only law abiding citizens obey it.
Everything Dannel P. does against legal guns is designed to curry favor with the Obama/Bloomberg/Soros crowd. The horrific tragedy of Sandy Hook was still fresh in the news cycle when Malloy trotted out reams of gun-ban proposals. He was indifferent to the victims; he used them as an excuse to ram through every gun confiscation dream he could that was near and dear to the gun-banners’ goals.
Malloy is the worst of the worst and we are now stuck with him for another four years. Barf.